•• . ** v \ . ll|# ./% VSR-' . ** v % f?#" jH 






.0 



\V,g** v'^v* *^ m '&*\* v^> 

AX- ** /»^% * v ^>'i- ^ ***;&«* ** ■ 

WrS ^*** °°ygWS ^\. vtSp/ 4^ v "\ °»?W>v «* 



TV -^B^ 



0^ *n 



,G^ V *>KT^ A <v *f.T* .0* ^> *7XT^ A 



«P^ 



r ^> "-SI 



o5°^ 










1 -4." * &t(l/Z?2-> * ^A y- » ' 






N i 



V* •• ittt V* -'3K'- v* s^°° ' 









SPEECH 



/ 



HON. DAVID S. KAUFMAN, OF TEXAS, 



■v 



THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 



I' 

/' / DELI VERBID 



IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY 10, 1847. 



WASHINGTON: 

PRINTED AT THE OFFICE OF BLAIR AND RIVES. 
1847. 



r 6f\V 



THE SLAVERY QUESTION. 



The following Bill, reported by the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs, being under consideration in 
Committee of the Whole on the state of the 
Union, viz: 

A BILL making further provision for the expenses attend- 
ing the intercourse between the United States and foreign 
nations. 

Whereas war exists between these United Stales and the 
Republic of Mexico, and assurances have been given to the 
Government of Mexico of the President's wi.-di to settle all 
questions between the two countries on libera! and satisfac- 
tory terms to each, and their mutual interest and security ; 
and the President may be able to conclude peace with the 
republic of Mexico prior to the next session of Congress, if 
means for that object are at his disposal : And whereas, in 
the adjustment of the many complicated questions between 
the two icoun tries, it may happen that an expenditure of 
money wi^ be called for by the stipulations of any treaty 
which may be entered into: Therefore, 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 
of the United Stales of Jim-erica in Congress assembled, That 
the sum of thirty thousand dollars he, aiid the same is hereby 
appropriated, out of any money in the treasury not other- 
wise appropriated, to enable the President to enter upon 
negotiations for the restoration of peace with Mexico; and 
also the sum of three millions of dollars be hereby appro- 
priated, out of any money in the treasury not otherwise ap 
propriated, to enable the* President to conclude a treaty of 
peace with the republic of Mexico, to be used by him in the 
event that said treaty, when duly ratified by Mexico, shall 
call for the expenditure of the same, or any part thereof: 
Provided, That full and accurate accounts of all these ex- 
penditures shall be by him transmitted to Congress as soon 
as practicable: 

The following was offered as an additional sec- 
tion to said bill, by Mr. Wilmot, of Pennsylva- 
nia: 

Sec. 2. Jlnd he it further enacted, That there shall be nei- 
ther slavery nor involuntary servitude in any Territory on 
the continent of America which shall hereafter be acquired 
by, or annexed to, the United States by virtue of this appro- 
priation, or in any other manner whatever, except for crimes 
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted: Provided, 
always, That any person escaping into such territory from 
whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in anyone of the 
United States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and 
conveyed out of said territory to the person claiming his or 
her labor or service :" 

Mr. KAUFMAN rose and addressed the com- 
mittee as follows: 

Mr. Chairman: In the remarks which I propose 
to submit to the consideration of this committee, it 
is not my intention to reply to t lie low abuse which 
was some time since uttered by a member from 
New York, [Mr. Culver.] I have too much re- 
spect for the State I in part represent here, for the 
Democratic party, and for myself, to do so. I 
honor and respect the great " Empire State" of 



this Union, and for many of her Representatives 
on this floor I entertain that regard which ability 
and integrity are always sure to engender. But, 
sir, when I see a Representative so far forget him- 
self as to indulge in language unbecoming this 
great Council Chamber of the American Union, 
whether against the State I represent, or the party 
to which I have the honor to belong, the words of 
such a man " pass by me as the idle wind, which 
I regard not." 

Texas needs no eulogy from me, one of the 
humblest of her sons. Her history, though short, 
is brilliant, and her acts are at once the monument 
and vindication of her fame. Her daring resist- 
ance to Mexican oppression; her immortal victory 
achieved under the auspices of the lone star on the 
plains of San Jacinto, resulting as it did in the 
capture of the blood-stained tyrant who now " frets 
his hour" on the stage of Mexico; her deep-rooted 
American feeling in resisting all the allurements of 
European diplomacy, at a critical period in your 
and her history; and the unexampled bravery with 
which her " Rangers" have upheld the " star- 
spangled banner" in the resistless charge at Mon- 
terey, will vindicate her for ever from the puny 
attacks of mushroom politicians, whose assaults 
upon the glorious Constitution of our country are 
equally harmless, yet not less glaring, than upon 
the fair fame of the " lone star State." 

Still less will I attempt to vindicate the Admin- 
istration from the attacks of that member. Such 
assaults, from such a source, will only have a ten- 
dency to elevate it still higher in the confidence 
and affection of the American people. The men 
of this country have still running in their veins 
Jlmerican blood, and they will bring the Adminis- 
tration and the country out of this war with honor 
and with success. " The sword of Washington 
is in Mexico, " and, although worn on an humble 
thigh, it will make its way, with our army, to vic- 
tory and renown. The present war has already 
added immensely to our storehouse of national rec- 
ollections, and has furnished examples for future 
generations to admire and imitate. The sons of 
every portion of this great Republic mingling in 
the fray, will have their affections for the Union 
rekindled upon the altar of patriotic sacrifice, and 
thus, additional safeguards will be thrown around 
the great charter of our liberties. Who, sir, pos- 
sessed of an American heart, would, if he could, 
strike from our annals the proud achievements so 



lately added to it by a Taylor of Virginia, a Worth 
of Massachusetts, a Hays of Texas, or a Parker 
of Pennsylvania, whose daring exploit in burning 
the Creole, moored as she was to the very walls of 
the castle of San Juan de Ulloa, cannot be sur- 
passed in coolness, courage, presence of mind, and 
patriotic determination, by any act of heroism of 
ancient or modern times? I am persuaded, sir, 
there is none. 

There is one attack, however, Mr. Chairman, 
on the President of the United States, from which 
I feel it my peculiar duty to defend him, on account 
of the quarter from whence it comes. I allude to 
the violent and abusive language indulged in by 
the New Era, (a press established at the city of 
Austin, Texas,) in the absence of the regular editors, 
against the Executive, on account of the proceed- 
ings of General Kearny in Santa Fe — which attack 
is now paraded in triumph in the opposition prints 
as an evidence of public sentiment in Texas. Now, 
sir, although every man in Texas contends for her 
title to the Rio Grande, from its mouth to its source, 
and none more warmly so than myself, as my re- 
marks at the last and present session of Congress 
will prove; and although not one would submit to 
sec her despoiled of her territorial or other rights; 
yet I am sure I speak the sentiments of an over- 
whelming majority of my constituents, and indeed 
of all Texas, when I say that they were no less in- 
dignant than surprised at that attack. The people 
of Texas entertain for the President the warmest 
feelings of confidence and regard. Where is there 
a man in the United Slates, who has proved him- 
self a warmer and truer friend of Texas than the 
occupant of the Executive chair? Who has more 
zealously contended that the boundary of Texas 
extended to the Rio Grande than President Polk? 
Is he not now receiving the daily maledictions of 
his political enemies on this floor and elsewhere 
for sending the army, as he was bound by his oath 
to do, to the Rio Grande, to protect the western 
boundary of our State? And what excuse is pre- 
tended as a justification of this unprovoked assault? 
Nothing more nor less than that General Kearny 
has. as we hive been officially informed by the 
President in his special message of December 22, 
1346, exceeded his orders ! Speaking of some reg- 
ulations of General Kearny, purporting to estab- 
lish and organize a permanent territorial Govern- 
ment at Santa Fe, he says in thai, message: "These 
have not been approved and recognised by me." 
He further says: '-Any excess of power exercised 
by officers has resulted in no practical injury, and 
can and will be early corrected," &c. 

What was the language of the President in his 
special message communicated to Congress on the 
11th of May, 1846? Alluding; to the commence- 
ment of hostilities hy the Mexicans on (he eastern 
bank of the Rio Grande, he said: " The Mexican 
' Government, after a long-continued scries of men- 
' aces, has at last invaded our territory, and shed 
'the blond of our (*< • 1 1 < > w-citi/.eiis on our oim soil. " 
This opinion I am proud to say was concurred ill 

by a large majority of this House at this session, 
and liy ( !ongress at the last. 

In his last annual Me •",<• will also be found 
this language: ''The Texas which was ceded to 
' Spuin by the Florida treaty, in 1811), embraced 



' all the country now claimed by the State of Tex- 
' as between the Nueces and the Rio Grande. The 
'republic of Texas always claimed this river as her 
' icestern boundary, and in her treaty made with Santa 
' Jlna, in May, 1836, he recognised it as such. This 
' toas the Texas which, by the act of our Congress of 
' December 29//i, 1845, was admitted as one of the 
' Stales of our Union." Such, sir, are the just and 
magnanimous sentiments of the President in regard 
to the rights of Texas — sentiments which entitle 
him to the gratitude instead of the censure of every 
true-hearted Texan. You may rest assured, Mr. 
Chairman, that Texas is not yet recreant to dem- 
ocratic men and democratic measures, and every 
attempt made to alienate her affections from the 
man in favor of whose election nearly every heart 
in Texas beat, will prove futile and unavailing. 

With these preliminary remarks, which I should 
have made at an earlier day but for the difficulty 
of obtaining the floor, I will now proceed to the 
discussion of the question involved in the amend- 
ment proposed by the honorable gentleman from 
Pennsylvania, [Mr. Wilmot.] And here, sir, let 
me recur to a page in the instructive history of the 
past, for it has been well said that "history is phi- 
losophy leaching by example." We are told there 
that the Cantons of Switzerland, after the termina- 
tion of a long and successful war, were near dis- 
solving their confederacy by a contention about 
the spoils of victory; but we, more foolish than 
they, are about, if not to dissolve this Union, at 
least to weaken the sacred bonds of affection that 
bind us together, and that have made the name of 
an American citizen honored and respected in the 
remotest corners of the earth, by quarrelling about 
what we expect ivill be the spoils of our victories 
in Mexico. 

We are now, Mr. Chairman, in the midst of a 
war with a foreign Power. But, what is a thousand 
times more to be dreaded than a war with any for- 
eign Power, the progress of this debate has shown 
that we are at war with ourselves. Our arms are 
invincible, and victory will perch on our banners 
when contending; with a foreign foe; but when our 
arms are turned against ourselves, liberty itself 
most bleed and constitutional Government perish. 
Would to God that my eyes had never beheld the 
suicidal spectacle, which has been exhibited since 
the agitation of this question ! Would that the 
most dangerous of all parties, that founded on sec- 
tional and geographical considerations, had never 
reared its horrid front within these walls! Who 
does not imagine that he can almost now hear from 
the lips of that sacred form (the portrait of Wash- 
ington) looking down upon us with a countenance 
of heavenly benignity, "frown upon the first dawn- 
ing of every attempt to alienate any portion of our 
country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties 
which link together the various parts ?" How sad 
are my feelings now, when compared with those 
which animated my bosom, when a little more 
than a year ago I entered under the banner of the 
"lone star" the folds of this glorious Union. Then 
all was resplendent with the brightness of hope. 
The people Df Texas fell thai they were returning 
as from a temporary exile, into the bosom of a 
Confederacy whose bonds were never to be sun- 
dered. In assenting; to the overtures of annexa- 



tion proffered to them by the voice of the Ameri- 
can people, they were actuated by no selfish feel- 
ings of interest, but their hearts first prompted what 
their judgments afterwards approved. They im- 
agined that concord and harmony would forever 
pervade a Union cemented by the blood of your 
and their fathers; and yet they have already heard 
the jarring sounds of discord foreboding direful 
consequences in regard to its perpetuity. 

However anxious different gentlemen may be 
for the paternity of the amendment under consid- 
eration, I envy not the fame of the successful com- 
petitor for its meretricious honors. Although one 
gentleman from New York, [Mr. Grover,] at the 
last session, advised its introduction, another gen- 
tleman, from Ohio, [Mr. Brinkerhoff,] xorote it, 
and a third gentleman, from New York, [Mr. 
Preston King,] at this session, attempted, under 
cover of a " personal explanation," to appropriate 
its fancied thunder, — yet it will go down to poster- 
ity as the amendment of the gentleman from Penn- 
sylvania. The " Wilmot proviso" will continue 
to be its name; but notwithstanding the solicitude 
which the honorable gentleman exhibited for his 
offspring at the opening of this discussion, I have 
not the "least doubt that it will die, " unwept, un- 
honored, and unsung." 

If I believed in omens, I would think it no favor- 
able augury for the safety of his bantling, that on 
Monday last — the day set for the commencement 
of the discussion of this subject — the usual invo- 
cation of Divine Grace made at that desk by our 
appointed Chaplain was not heard! I believe it 
will die — if not in this House, in another stage of 
its existence — from indications already given by 
northern gentlemen, upon this floor and else- 
where; and because I believe there is yet sufficient 
independence and regard for the Constitution left to 
secure its destruction. It will not do to tell us, as 
was done by an honorable gentleman from New 
York, [Mr. Grover,] that this amendment is ne- 
cessary "to satisfy the great northern mind." Did 
the regiment of volunteers which had lately gone 
from New York, and the two regiments which had 
so recently gone from Pennsylvania, require any 
" satisfaction" of this character? No, sir. They 
marched with alacrity to the field of,danger, thus 
furnishing a rebuke to the slander, that, before the 
men of the North would be willing to fight for the 
cause of their country, they must first know what 
was to become of the territory they might perma- 
nently win from the enemy. They went to bat- 
,tle, not for land, but to uphold the honor of their 
country. 

I have no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that we will 
acquire territory as a result of this war. It is ne- 
cessary to the vindication of our rights that indem- 
nity should be made us for spoliations on the prop- 
erty of our citizens, perpetrated long before the 
commencement of this war, and for the expenses 
incurred by hostilities originating with Mexico, 
after she had rejected our proffers of a peaceful 
negotiation; and if she has no other means of set- 
tlement, (and I believe she has not,) the acquisi- 
tion of territory must be. the result. But should^ 
this proposed amendment be adopted as a part of 
the policy of this country, all hopes of acquiring 
territory in that quarter are gone forever. The 



South would never consent, under such a state of 
things, to add any territory to what we now pos- 
sess. The Whigs, north and south, are opposed 
to the acquisition of any territory. In proof of this, 
I might refer to their frequent declarations here; to 
a bill some time since endeavored to be introduced 
by the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Stephens,] 
and to the following extract from an amendment 
offered to a bill similar to this by the honorable 
Senator from Georgia, [Mr. Berrien,] in the other 
end of this Capitol: 

"That the war with Mexico ought not to be prosecuted 
by this Government with any view to the dismemberment of 
that repul'li'', or to the acquisition by conquest of any portion 
of her territory-" 

The Whigs, then, under any circumstances, if 
we are permitted to judge from their declarations, 
will go against the acquisition of territory; and if 
you adopt the principles of this amendment as the 
settled policy of the Government, every southern 
Representative, not utterly recreant to his duty to his 
constituents, will be compelled to pursue a similar 
course, and then there will be but a small number 
left to advocate the further acquisition of territory. 
And thus those Democrats who support this pro- 
viso, if successful, will effectually prostrate the 
Administration of their choice; for the country 
would hardly sustain any Administration that 
would terminate a war " without indemnity for the 
past and security for the future." 

I shall endeavor, Mr. Chairman, to discuss this 
question with all good temper and good feeling. 
Born at the North and fostered by the South, I 
have no other feeling than an undivided affection 
for the whole Union. Who can forget the place 
of his nativity ? Who could prove faithless to the 
cherished land of his adoption? But it is my 
duty to speak out fearlessly the truth. I consider 
this amendment as totally inopportune and singu- 
larly out of place. There, may be "a time and a 
place" for all things, but this is neither the time nor 
the place for agitating a question that must shake 
this Union to its centre. Our foreign difficulties 
ought to be first settled before we raise domestic 
ones. The enemy of our country ought to be met 
and effectually humbled, before we stir up internal 
strife (if it must come) among ourselves. 

But however ill-timed may have been the entry 
of this bantling on the political stage, it is not 
more so than are its features deformed and mis- 
shapen. Injustice is marked upon its front, and 
degradation to the South, or disunion, must follow 
its fatal adoption. It cannot be otherwise ! When- 
ever the freemen of the South shall submit to po- 
litical disfranchisement, they will prove them- 
selves " degenerate sons of noble sires," and unfit 
to be free. They would no longer be the fit asso- 
ciates of freemen, and they would only secure tha 
contempt of those who inflicted the injury. But 
this they will never do. Dearly as they love the 
Union, "proudly as they rally under the star-span- 
gled banner to meet their country's foe by sea or 
i>y land, they would perish in the last ditch before 
they would yield one tithe of their constitutional 
rights and their blood-bought privileges! You 
may out vote them, you may hear them down at 
the ballot-box, or by your voices in this Hall, 
but they will still have left freedom's legacy, stout 



6 



hearts and strong arms, to work out their political I 
salvation. 

I do not make these remarks by way of menace 
or threat. Such an attempt is the farthest possible ' 
from my thoughts. Thank God, the people of 
every portion of this wide-spread Confederacy, 
are brave and totally above all influence from fear. 
The "northern mind" could be reached, not by 
an appeal, to their fears, but to their patriotic feel- 
ings, and to those historic events which made, 
and I humbly trust in the providence of God, not- 
withstanding the clouds that sometimes over- 
shadow our path, will, for ages, preserve us a 
united people. I have made them for the purpose 
of awakening the perhaps slumbering patriot 
everywhere, in order that his voice may come up 
trumpet-tongued to stimulate his Representative to 
the discharge of his duty to the whole country, 
and to give his " aid and comfort" to the friends 
of that legacy bequeathed us by our fathers. 

Our constitutional Union, Mr. Chairman, was 
based upon compromise, and by compromise alone 
can it be preserved. Cut when you depart from 
this principle; when you take the lion's share of 
the common stock, and appropriate it to one por- 
tion of the Union, and leave nothing for the other, 
you at once destroy that equality which is the basis 
of all lasting unions. And what is the proposition 
of the honorable gentleman from Pennsylvania? 
Where is that "neutrality" on the subject of sla- 
very, so warmly contended for by that gentleman? 
What "neutrality" is there in a scheme that pro- 
vides that all the spoils of victory, though won by 
the common blood and common treasure of both 
North and South, should be open to the enjoy- 
ment of the North alone ? Was there not real neu- 
trality in what is contended for by the South, that 
the territory won by the joint exertions of all 
should be left open to all under the guaratees and 
compromises of the Constitution ? 

But this amendment is not the offspring of equal- 
ity. It says to the South, "Thus far shalt thou go, 
and no further." It substantially says to the South, 
that her citizens shall not remove into any portion 
of the territory, their blood or their treasure may 
assist in acquiring, but they must remain within 
their present limits; or, if they go there, they must 
r.ot take with them property guarantied to them by 
the Constitution. Yes, sir, properly guarantied to the 
South by the great compromises of the Federal Consti- 
tution. 1 trust, sir, I shall not shock the nerves of 
any sensitive gentleman in applying the word pro- 
perty to slaves. In 1783, the British Government 
(however differently they might talk now) express- 
ly recognised slaves os property. Wn the treaty of 
peace of 1783, between Great Britain and the Uni- 
ted States, signed by D. Hartley, on the part of 
the British Government, and John Adams, Ben- 
jamin Franklin, and John Jay , on the part of the 
United States, (all north* rn men.) will be found this 
language : " His Britannic Majesty shall, with all 
1 convenient speed, and without causing any de- 

* struction, or carrying aioay any negroes or other pro- 
1 perty of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his 
•an. uis, and fleets, from the, said United 

• States. This treaty, recognising slaves as pro- 
pi ity, was ratified by the British Government, and 
wu; voted for bv every northern representative in 



Congress, consisting of the following members: 
Mr. Foster, of New Hampshire; Messrs. Gerry, Pa- 
tridge, and Osgood, of Massachusetts; Messrs. El- 
lery and Howell, of Rhode Island; Messrs. Sher- 
man and Wadsworth, of Connecticut; Mr. Beatty, 
of New Jersey; and Messrs. Mifflin, Hand, and 
Morris, of Pennsylvania. Here, then, we have 
John Jay designating slaves as property, whose 
character and sentiments were referred to with so 
much approbation and complacency by the gentle- 
man from Massachusetts, [Mr. Winthrop,] upon 
another question, (the war of 1812,) and Mr. Mor- 
ris, of Pennsylvania, whose opinions, expressed 
in the Federal Convention, formed a text for the 
gentleman from New York, [Mr. Rathbun,] from 
which he yesterday lectured northern Represent- 
atives who dared to do their duty. 

It had been well said by the able and distin- 
guished chairman of the Committee on Foreign 
Relations, [Mr. C.J. Ingersoll,] that "the ultra 
opposition to slavery was not an American senti- 
ment." It is an exortic, and if it flourish in the 
new soil to which it has been transplanted, its in- 
fluence will be as disastrous as that of the deadly- 
Upas. It was not even a British sentiment, as I have 
shown, in 1783. In the convention which framed 
our Constitution, the North looked upon slaves as 
so entirely possessing the character of property, 
that they were for a long time unwilling that they 
should be considered in any respect in the light of 
persons in fixing the basis of congressional repre- 
sentation, until, at last, 'the difficulty was settled by 
the three-fifths basis, as it now stood — giving slaves 
the mixed character of persons and property. This 
sentiment had arisen since the early and better days 
of our republic, and was looked to as the last re- 
sort of the advocates of monarchy to overthrow 
the noblest Government ever erected by man. 
We had shown in our revolutionary war and the 
war of 1812, " the might that slumbers in a free- 
man's arm;" and unless this last effort of foreign 
abolitionism did the work which British steel could 
not do, our republic would be perpetual. And 
here, Mr. Chairman, permit me to read an ex- 
tract clipped from a respectable newspaper, show- 
ing very clearly the foreign origin of this mischiev- 
ous movement: 

"Objects or Abolitionists. — Henry C. Wright, a trial 
frig Abolitionist from Boston, has recently written aiettei 
dated at London, which has been published in the ' National 
Antp-Slavery Standard. 9 in which he says: 

"•Last Sunday we all spent with William Ashhuisf at 
' his lowly seat at Muiwell Hill. Mr. Pox, the anti-corn-law 
' orator, and James Haughton were with us. Tin- dissolution 
'fifihe American Union, as the giganticfoe oj lit i rty.theright 
' of the British people to promote this object, and the altty 
'Jrieifds offri ed >m to oi ■ nize a league against sloven 
'Governments, were prominent t tpies of our' conversation.' " 

And so, sir, the rigid of the British people to effect 

a dissolution of the . ?mi rican I r nion is boldly asserted 

j by an American Abolitionist, and concurred in by his 

' British confederates ! Who can read such langi 

! without feeling the blush of shame mantling on his 

s'heek, that America should have ever given birth 

to such a bastard and traitorous son ? 

It is not my intention to discuss the question of 
slavery in the abstract, tf « rong il be, 11 is erti 
for me to Know thai the people of the Sotith an in 
no way answerable for thatwrong. They found 



it existing amongst them without any agency on 
their part; and if they were disposed to abolish it, 
it could not be done, except in the lapse of time, 
without consequences of the most awful character. 
That it was introduced into the American colonies 
by the agency of the British Government, and even 
against the remonstrances of those colonies, history 
will bear her testimony. Those very foreigners 
who now met and caballed to sow the seeds of po- 
litical dissolution and ultimate ruin in this Republic, 
are the sons of those who entailed slavery upon the 
colonies. And the place where these foreign in- . 
cendiaries receive the greatest support, the city of 
Boston, (I by no means intend to implicate any- 
thing like a majority of her citizens,) furnished the 
first individual, James Smith, a Boston merchant, 
who in 1645 imported slaves into the American 
colonies. I make this assertion on the authority 
of George Bancroft, a Massachusetts historian. 

The advocates of the proposed amendment, if I 
understand correctly their position, base their con- 
stitutional right to pass it on Sec. 4, Art. 4, of the 
Constitution of the United States, which is as fol- 
lows: " The Congress shall have power to dispose 
1 of and make all needful rules and regulations re- 
' specting the terrritory and other property belong- 
' ing to the United States." And here, let me re- 
mark, how cautiously this grant of power is made; 
and how latitudinarian must be the construction that 
would warrant, under such a grant, the adoption of 
this amendment! The Constitution, in granting to 
Congress power over the District of Columbia and 
places purchased from the States for the erection of 
"forts, magazines, arsenals, and dock yards, "uses 
the language, that " Congress shall have power to 
exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever 
over such district and such places;" whereas, in 
regard to the territory of the United States, they 
are only authorized to " make all needful rules and 
regulations." Mark the strong distinction in the 
grants of power! In the first grant, how full and 
comprehensive ! In the second, how limited and re- 
stricted! In the one case, it is exclusive legislative 
power; in the other, a mere right to dispose of and 
to make needful rules and regulations; evidently al- 
luding to such rules and regulations as may be neces- 
sary to carry into effect the power granted of dispos- 
ing of said territory. Let us look further into the 
terms of this grant of power. Congress has power 
to make all "needful rules and regulations." Will 
it be said that the framers of the Constitution could 
have intended that such a stretch of power as is 
contained in this amendment was a " needful rule ?" 
Could men representing slave States in that con- 
vention (for New York then had 25,000 slaves, 
and New Jersey 15,000, and indeed every State 
but one had then slaves within its limits) have im- 
agined that such a rule as this is was a rule " need- 
ful" in its character? The supposition cannot be 
maintained. But this grant is confined in its terms 
to " territory belonging to the United States." 
Does this territory upon which we now propose to 
plant this restriction " belong to the United States?" 
What says the amendment? It expressly applies 
to "territory which shall hereafter be acquired by 
or annexed to the United States." Again, it is 
only in regard to territory or other property belong- 
ing to the United Stales that we are authorized to 



make "needful rules and regulations;" and yet 
under this grant we are asked to make rules and 
regulations in regard to property not belonging to 
the United States, but ivhich belongs to individuals. 
You are asked to say, that if a slave goes to this 
territory, he is free; and thus you are directly le- 
gislating in regard to property belonging to individ- 
uals, and not to the United States! Such is the 
sandy foundation upon which the advocates of this 
restriction have built! 

I hold in my hand, Mr. Chairman, a speech de- 
livered in this House on the 16th of last January, 
by an honorable gentleman from Maine, [Mr. 
Hamlin,] in which occurs this extraordinary lan- 
guage — extraordinary, considering that it comes 
from one of the straitest of the sect of restriction- 
ists: "California and other territories (says he) 
' to which a declaratory law may apply, are now 
' free. By the law of nations, then, the momenta 
' slave treads upon their soil he becomes free. Sla- 
' very, then, must exist there, if at all, in viola- 
' tion, utter violation of law. It cannot exist except 
' by positive enactment. A declaratory law ofCon- 
' gress, then, will only affirm the law of nations 
'and prevent a violation of that law." If slavery 
cannot exist in California and other territories now 
free " without a positive enactment," let me ask, 
where is the propriety of agitating this question ? 
Is the South asking this House for any "positive 
enactment ?" Does she ask the North for her aid, 
legislative or otherwise, to spread her domestic 
institutions? Never! She has not done so. She 
will not do so. All that she asks is, that you "let 
it alone," as the Constitution has fixed it. Let me 
again ask, why attach to this bill an amendment in 
the nature of a brand upon all who reside south of 
"Mason and Dixon's line?" Cui bono? Will 
nothing be conceded to harmony? nothing to the 
pride and feelings of a powerful and patriotic sec- 
tion of this Confederacy? Let me quote again 
from the "Father of his Country," if, in the new 
lights that have arisen to guide modern statesmen, 
his " parting advice" has not become stale and 
unpalatable: "You cannot shield yourselves too 
' much against the jealousies and heart-burnings 
' which spring from geographical discriminations: 
' they tend to render alien to each other those who 
' ought to be bound together by fraternal affec- 
' tion." — [Washington's Farewell Mdress.] 

But the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. Hamlin,] 
while he says that slavery, without " a positive 
enactment," could not exist in California, except 
in utter violation of law, says also that a declara- 
tory law of Congress will prevent a violation of 
that law, (the law of nations.) What, sir ! will 
not individuals who violate one law, violate two 
or a dozen ? How will this declaratory law prevent 
a violation of another law? Are there any penal- 
ties in this amendment that are wanting in the 
laws of nations? Is there any penalty at all in 
this amendment; or was there any in the North- 
western ordinance, or the Missouri compromise 
act? None whatever. But I have not time further 
to show up the fallacy of such reasoning. 

The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Wil- 
mot] said, that when his proviso was adopted by 
this House, at the last session of Congress, the 
South acquiesced in its adoption. This I utterly 



8 



deny. There was not a southern member on this 
floor whose name stood recorded in its favor. 
They voted against it to a man; and when it was 
attached to a bill similar to the one now under 
consideration, they voted against the bill itself, on 
account of the proviso, although without that pro- 
viso the southern Democrats would have generally 
given it their support. And I might also here 
remark, that some northern members who had 
even spoken against the bill — among others the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Wixthrop] — 
were so enamored of the amendment, that when 
incorporated with it, they turned round and gave 
the bill their cordial support. 

The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Wil- 
mot] seemed indignant that the South should not 
submit to the decision of a majority of the Demo- 
crats, as expressed at the last session of Congress 
on his proviso, as if blows would be received from 
a Democratic hand with more forbearance than 
from any other source ! I can tell that gentleman 
that he knows little of human nature if he does not 
know that the dearer the friend the more terrible 
is felt the injury he may inflict, and the more bit- 
terly will it be resented. But the gentleman is 
slightly mistaken as to his premises. The Demo- 
cratic majority of this House happened at the last 
session to vote against his proviso; and as he has ac- 
cused the South of what he himself and his friends 
have been guilty, it remains to be seen whether, 
having discovered his error, he will take his own 
advice, and abandon hisamendment. Consistency 
is, indeed, a jewel; and a conformity of action to 
advice inspires confidence in the sincerity and in- 
tegrity of the adviser. 

I will now, sir, pay my respects to the gentle- 
man from New York, [Mr. Rathbun,] who im- 
mediately preceded me in this discussion. That 
gentleman formally proposed to the southern Repre- 
sentatives on this floor, that "if they would agree 
to amend the Constitution, so as to strike out the 
compromise feature of the three fifths slave repre- 
sentation, he would be willing that the South might 
take their slaves into the new territory in whatever 
numbers they might think proper. " It seems, then, 
that he does not oppose shivery because it is an 
evil, either social or political; not because it was a 
curse to the free population amongst which it ex- 
isted, as contended by the gentleman from Indiana, 
[Mr. Pettit;] not because it was a sin; not at all: 
but simply because it urns to the South an element of 
political jwwer. I would ask the members of this 
House upon all sides; I would ask the country, 
whether this proposition does not prove the truth 
of the remarks on this subject, made by my friend, 
the able, independent, and patriotic member from 
New York, [Mr. Strong,] that the agitation of 
this question was a mere scramble for political 
power. And will the country tolerate the agitation 
of such a question for such purposes, at a time like 
this, so near the close of the session, when so many 
important measures are necessary to be brought 
forward to secure the comfort of our soldiers, the 
credit of the Government, and tin- triumph of our 
arms? The gentleman complained thai the South 
had too many Presidents, loo many judges, and 
too many Speakers of the House of Representatives! 
And is it a good reason, because the South may 



have been somewhat more honored by the confi- 
dence of the American people than our brethren of 
the North, that their feelings should now be out- 
raged, and the ligaments of the Union weakened? 
It is true, the South has had a majority of the most 
important offices ; but while she held the majority 
of the offices, the North, through the agency of 
the United States Bank, the protective tariff', the 
internal improvement system, and the funding of 
the public debt, had secured- to herself the lion's 
share of the finances of this Union. Virginia has 
had, thus far, more than her due proportion of the 
Presidents of the United States; but let it not oe 
forgotten that she is literally " the mother of 
States and of statesmen;" that she gave to her 
sister States a Washington — " first in war, first in 
peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen;" 
a Henry, to thunder in the very ears of tyranny 
the inalienable rights of man; a Jefferson to draft 
the charter of our independence, " inestimable to 
us and formidable to tyrants" throughout the 
world; and a Marshall, who, for a third of a cen- 
tury, expounded the Constitution of our country, 
with an ability and integrity never equalled ! Let 
it be remembered, too, to her lasting honor, that 
she never asked nor received any portion of Fed- 
eral patronage, in the shape of what she believed 
unconstitutional expenditures of the public money 
in internal improvements, but, like her own Har- 
per's Ferry eagle, " towering in her pride of 
place," she nobly refused the boon ! She, alone, 
of the original thirteen, never deserted the Demo- 
cratic flag in a Presidential election; and when the 
liberty of speech and of the press was invaded by 
the "Sedition law," her resolutions of '98 con- 
signed that law to the hissing execrations of their 
contemporaries and posterity. It is to these causes, 
more than to any other, that she owed her political 
elevation and unrivalled fame. " Principles not 
men "has ever been her motto. Did she not, in 1840, 
backed by South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, 
and Missouri, repudiate both her sons, " Tippeca- 
noe and Tyler too," and adhere to the fortunes of 
New York's favorite son, (Martin Van Buren,) 
while New York deserted him, and cave a major- 
ity of 13,000 to General Harrison ? General Har- 
rison, too, was opposed to such a provision as this 
under consideration; for we are told by a friend of 
this amendment [Mr. Pettit, of Indiana] that, 
when Governor of Indiana, he used all his influ- 
ence to prevent the anti-slavery provision in the 
Northwestern ordinance from having any appli- 
cation to that Territory. And yet, New York now 
complains that the South had too much political 
power, and too many of the offices in the Federal 
Government. 

Mr. GORDON. New York makes no such 
pitiful complaints. 

Mr. KAUFMAN (resuming.) One of her Rep- 
resentatives [Mr. Ratiiuun] had, and, as far as 
he was concerned, by the proposal he offered in re- 
gard to the slave representation, and the enumera- 
tion he made of high offices held by the South, 
_ i e conclusive evidence that opposition to slavery 
with him was purely << question of federal and poli- 
tical power. The northern or free States have 
now a majority offorty-four voles in the electoral 
colleges; and on the admission of Wisconsin, they 



9 



will have a majority of forty-eight votes over the 
South; and if, with that predominancy of numbers, 
they cannot sustain their sons against southern 
competitors, it would be a libel on the North to 
intimate that anything but superior qualifications 
and superior claims in the southern candidates 
insured them northern preference. Yes, sir, the 
North had now the political power, and she would 
continue to have it. And how did the free States 
get the political ascendency? It is an interesting 
fact, Mr. Chairman, that they are indebted for that 
power to the magnanimity and uncalculating gen- 
erosity of Virginia. Never dreaming of future 
consequences, she ceded to the United States the 
Northwestern Territory, now formed into the States 
of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and, I may 
add, Wisconsin; and never thinking of any con- 
sideration but kindness to the slave, who required, 
for his comfort, a milder climate than the North- 
western Territory, she agreed, by the vote of all 
her Representatives in the Congress of the United 
States, viz: Messrs. Grayson, Carrington, and 
Richard Henry Lee, to that provision in the North- 
western Ordinance, which forever prohibited sla- 
very in said Territory. Indeed, every southern 
Representative in the Congress of the United States, 
and every northern member, except Mr. Yates, 
from New York, (then a slave State,) voted for 
this ordinance. The South thus unanimously agreed 
to give the free States a territory and a power 
which, unless her magnanimity should awaken a 
perhaps slumbering feeling of gratitude in the 
bosoms of the northern Representatives, and par- 
ticularly those from the States formed out of Vir- 
ginia's magnificent donation, may enable them to 
weaken the South, and endanger her security. It 
is for the Representatives of the North to say 
whether this gift of Virginia is to be an instrument 
in the hands of a northern Delilah, to shear the 
South of the locks of her strength, and thus to 
endanger this glorious edifice of freedom, whose 
sudden rise and beautiful proportions are the won- 
der and admiration of the whole world. 

Notwithstanding the outcry which has been 
made against the South upon this floor, yet his- 
tory will show that the North has gradually en- 
croached upon the rights of the South, from the 
commencement of our Union to the present time; 
and this is the third act in the drama. In the 
course of my remarks connected with the Mis- 
souri compromise and the history of Texas, this 
position will be clearly established. 

When the Constitution of the United States went 
into operation, every State, but one, had slaves 
within its limits. It appears by the census of 1790, 
the first that was taken under the Constitution, 
that at this period, more than a year after the 
Government went into operation, New Hampshire 
had 158 slaves within her limits; Rhode Island 
952; Connecticut 2,759; Pennsylvania 3,737; New 
Jersey 11,423; New York 21,324; while, the State 
of Georgia had but 29,624. Massachusetts is the 
only exception, although it was not until the year 
1783, that it was positively known to the people of 
that Commonwealth whether slavery lawfully ex- 
isted there or not. Bradford, in the second volume 
of his History of Massachusetts, says, (pages 226 
and 227,) that " a judgment of the supremejudicial 



' court in Massachusetts, in the course of this year 
' (1783) given in the county of Worcester, was a 
' final decision unfavorable to the existence of sla- 
' very in Massachusetts." li Many slaves," says 
Mr. Bradford, " were holden in bondage within 
the Province (of Massachusetts) until the Revolu- 
tion;" although, the writer continues to say, " the 
'odious and highly criminal traffic of human be- 
' ings (the African slave-trade) was never allowed 
' in Massachusetts." It seems, then, slaves were 
held even in Massachusetts up to the time of our 
Revolution, whether sanctioned by their laws or 
not. I find by the Encyclopedia Americana, that 
even as late as 1832, the writer remarks that there 
" are 2,246 slaves in New Jersey; 386 in Pennsyl- 
' vania, and a few survivors of former times in New 
' York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island." Leav- 
ing out of the calculation the States of New Hamp- 
shire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Pennsylva- 
nia, on account of the small number of their slaves, 
it will be found that there were still eight of the 
original thirteen States which were slave States at 
the adoption of the Constitution of the United 
States. And now, how comes it that a Constitu- 
tion made by a majority of slave States can be so 
construed, without any alteration, as to strike a 
blow at the very institutions which existed in the 
States that created it? The proposition of the gen- 
tleman from Pennsylvania is either violative of the 
Constitution, or the framers of that invaluable in- 
strument were not the sage men we have always 
so fondly considered them. 

In the progress of events a new empire is added 
to our Federal Union. Louisiana is ceded to us 
by France in 1803. The opposition to this glori- 
ous measure beina: foiled by the overwhelming 
voice of the American people, turned their batter- 
ies against the permission of slavery there. Un- 
prepared for this attack when the State of Lou- 
isiana was admitted in 1812, upon the applica- 
tion of Missouri, in the year 1818, for admission 
into the Union, the storm burst forth in all its 
fury. Yes, sir, although Missouri applied in the 
early part of 1818 for admission, it was not until 
the 26th of February, 1821, after many trials and 
dangers in her way, that her admission was con- 
summated. And what occurred, Mr. Chairman, 
during the clamor of opposition against the admis- 
sion of Missouri into the Union? An immense 
territory was ceded to Spain to conciliate this north- 
ern influence. Texas — the State which I have the 
honor in part to represent, and the title of the Uni- 
ted States to which, in the language of John duin- 
cy Adams, "was as clear as their title to the Island 
of Orleans" — was ceded by this same Mr. Adams, 
then Secretary of State, to Spain, on the 22d of- 
February, 1819, in part, for the relinquishment of 
the right of Spain to the territory of Oregon. Here 
icas slave territory bargained away for free. It is 
true that the South obtained Florida, but what is 
Florida in comparison to the boundless and fertile 
prairies of Texas, extending from the 26th to the 
42d degree of north latitude, and six times as large 
as Scotland and Ireland combined ? Mr. Chair- 
man, I do not speak at random in saying that 
Texas was ceded to Spain partly to satisfy the 
feelings of opposition engendered towards the South 
by the agitation of the Missouri question. In a 



10 



letter from Mr. Monroe, who was President of the 
United States at the time of this surrender, address- 
ed to General Jackson, dated May 23, 1820, apol- 
ogizing for this treaty, which may be found in 
vol. 67, Niles's Register, pages 343-4, he says: 

" The Missouri question lias excited feelings and raised 
difficulties which did not exist before. * * * 
Having long known the repugnance with which the eastern 
portion of our Union, or rather some of those who have en- 
joyed its confidence, (for I do not think that the people 
themselves have any interest or wish of that kind,) have 
seen its aggrandizement to the West and South, I have been 
decidedly of opinion that we ought to be content with Flori- 
da for the present, and until the public opinion in that quarter 
shall he reconciled to any further change. I mention these 
circumstances to show you ihat our difficulties are not with 
Spain alone, but are likewise internal, proceeding from va- 
rious causes, which certain men are prompt to seize and 
turn to the account ot'their own ambitious views*" 

Here, sir, we have the statement of the (then) 
President of the United States of the causes which 
led to the surrender of Texas. It was the ambi- 
tious views of northern or eastern politicians, (not 
of the people;) and the re-acquisition of Texas in 
1845, by the voice of the northern people, in op- 
position to northern politicians, secret circular men, 
and all, shows the propriety of the distinction 
made by President Monroe between the people and 
the politicians. 

But, sir, this surrender of Texas did not satisfy 
the eastern politicians. Missouri was not to be 
permitted to select for herself her own domestic 
institutions, and thus enjoy the rights guarantied 
by the Constitution to every State; but her applica- 
tion was to be rejected unless she abolished slavery 
then existing within her limits. This difficulty 
was, however, after a protracted struggle, compro- 
mised, and, as the patriot trusted, forever; but the 
discussions of this session have shown how falla- 
cious are the best-founded hopes, when they con- 
flict with the ambitious views of politicians. The 
South finding they were the weaker in numbers, 
agreed to what is called the Missouri compromise, 
which is in these words: 

" Sec. 8. Jlnd he it further enacted, That in all that terri- 
tory ceded by France to the United States under the name 
of Louisiana, which lies north of 36° 30' north latitude not in- 
cluded within the limit- of the State, [of Missouri,] slavi ry 
and involuntary servitude, otherwise than in the punishment 
ofcrimes whereof tin parties shall have been duly convicted, 
shad he, audi- hereby, forever prohibited : Provided, al Bays, 
That any person escaping into t ic same, from whom laboror 
service is lawfully claimed in any State or Territory of the 
United States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed and 
conveyed to tha person claiming his or her labor or service 
as aforesaid." 

(The line of 3G°30' is the southern boundary of 
the State of Missouri.) 

This compromise forever secured the prepon- 
derance of political power in the North. It secured 
one of the grand objects of the politicians, and, 
that being attained, u is to be hoped that they will 
not push i!i' ii' plans, originally conceived for a 
purpose already accomplished, to a point that will 
endanger the integrity of this Union. 

'Plus compromise, Mr. Chairman, has been bit- 
terly denounced by many gentlemen who haw ad- 
vocated the amendmi nl now mi ler consideration. 
It has been represented .is a trick, a cheai upon the 
North; and us northern supporters have been held 



up to public condemnation as traitors to the* sec- 
tion of country which they represented. Never 
was there a more totally unfounded statement 
made in the face of the world. It is a fact, that 
only seven members from the northern Slates, out of 
the one hundred and twenty-seven which the North 
then had in both Houses of Congress, voted against the 
Missouri compromise line. Does it not bear inter- 
nal evidence of its being a northern measure ? Is 
it not concession and guarantee to the North, 
without any concession or guarantee at all to the 
South ? But the object of this misrepresentation 
is palpable. It is now for the purposes of politi- 
cal power, (as has been openly avowed on this 
floor;) to make that unpopular which was put 
upon the South by northern votes, and acceded to 
by but a small majority of southern members, for 
the sake of conciliation, harmony, and with an 
earnest desire for the preservation of the Union. 
Let us look into the imperishable record of this 
" compromise," and see whether it is deserving 
of being "kept" by the American people. The 
South this day, as one man, stand up for its ob- 
servance ; and it is for the men of the North to 
answer the fearful question propounded to them, 
Will you do likewise? I ask the record — is the 
Missouri compromise of northern or southern ori- 
gin? Perhaps its paternity, if traced, may re- 
vive that attachment for its offspring that is en- 
joined by a law of nature. Well, then, sir, it is 
of northern extraction. It was first proposed in 
the United States Senate by the Hon. Jesse B. 
Thomas, a Senator from the State of Illinois, and 
afterwards introduced into this House by Mr. 
Storrs, a very distinguished member from the 
State of New York. As this compromise was the 
best that could be done for the South— as it seem- 
ed to secure some portion of the acquisitions made 
for the Union by her immortal son, Thomas Jef- 
ferson, for the benefit of the South— we may say, 
how appropriately did it come from a representa- 
tive of the sovereignty of Illinois !— a State which 
had been yielded" by Virginia to the North, and 
which, with Indiana and Ohio, had given her the 
preponderance of political power ! 

And here, Mr. Chairman, I cannot refrain, as a 
Representative of the South, from paying the trib- 
ute of my respect to a distinguished son of Illinois, 
[Mr. Douglass,] of this House, not only for his 
manly struggle in favor of the State I in part rep- 
resent, and all the compromises of the Constitu- 
tion, but for the fearless and patriotic manner in 
which, when the North was eloquently appealed 
to, early in the session, by the able gentleman from 
Alabama, [Mr. Daugan,] to know whether any 
one of them would stand by the Missouri compro- 
mise, he was the first to rise in his place and de- 
clare that he would abide by it in its spirit and 
letter. It came appropriately, and with peculiar 
effect, from the Representative of a State which 
gave birth to the compromise, and showed 
thai the spirit which originated it is not yet ex- 
tinct. Although, after this session, this Hall will 
not be enlightened and instructed by the eloquence 
of this distinguished Representative, we may ex- 
press our gratification that he has been transferred 
to a higher sphere, in the other end of this < iapitol, 
where he will supply the place, as he has illustra- 



11 



ted the principles, of the author of the Missouri 
compromise. 

And I would be doing injustice to my feelings 
were I not to return my thanks to another distin- 
guished son of Illinois, [Mr. McClernand,] and 
to a distinguished Representative, [Mr. C. J. Iv- 
gersoll,] of my native State, Pennsylvania, which 
is now, and always has been, among the foremost 
to rush to her country's standard, for the prompt 
manner in which they disavowed the apparently ex 
cathedra remarks of the gentleman from New York, 
[Mr. Grover,] in regard to the course that north- 
ern members would pursue upon the question now 
under, consideration. There is a number of other 
gentlemen from the North who, when the time 
comes, will not be found wanting in their duty to 
themselves and their country, notwithstanding the 
denunciations so improperly promised them from 
their constituents by the gentleman from New York, 
[Mr. Grover,] and the gentleman from Maine, [Mr. 
Hamlin.] Those gentlemen will find that they are 
much mistaken when they suppose that all the mem- 
bers of tuis House come here to vote merely to se- 
cure their reelection, or to cater to and foster pre- 
judices fatal to the perpetuity of this Union, and 
violative of those principles of equality and justice 
which lie at the basis of our Constitution. 

"When the Missouri compromise was adopted, 
there were twenty-two States in the Union, eleven 
free States and eleven slave States, and of course 
the representation in the Senate was equal, with a 
northern Vice President, (Daniel D. Tompkins, 
of New York;) while, in the House of Represent- 
atives, the North had one hundred and five mem- 
bers, and the South had but eighty-one; giving a 
majority of twenty-four to the North. And yet 
the Missouri compromise was adopted in the Sen- 
ate by 34 ayes, to 10 noes; and in the House by 
ayes 134, noes 42. Every Senator from the free 
States, except the two from Indiana, voted for the 
Missouri compromise line; and every member 
from the free States in the House of Represent- 
atives, except three from Massachusetts, one 
from New Hampshire, and one from New York, 
also voted the same way. And whilst we find the 
northern members voting with such extraordinary 
unanimity in favor of this measure now repudiated 
by so many of their successors, we find such men 
as Samuel Smith, of Maryland; Louis McLane, 
of Delaware; Floyd and Nelson, of Virginia; 
Lewis Williams, of North Carolina; Joel Craw- ) 
ford and Cuthbert, of Georgia; William R. King, 
of Alabama; Richard M. Johnson, of Kentucky, 
and Williams, of Tennessee: southern men of such 
high character and unquestioned patriotism, back- 
ed by majorities, although small, from the South 
in both Houses of Congress, as will justify their 
successors at this day in following their example. 
It is an interesting fact, that this Missouri compro- 
mise was adopted in the House of Representatives 
on the 2d of March, 1820, the very day on which, 
sixteen years afterwards, Texas declared her inde- 
pendence; and which opened the way for the re- 
newal of that compromise by the American people 
themselves in regard to Texas, for the Missouri 
compromise now constitutes a part of the consti- 
tution (if her Stale, the only State in the Union of 
which that can be said. 



I have stated that every Senator from the free 
States, except the Senators from Indiana, voted in 
favor of this compromise. Among them were Ru- 
fus King, then a Senator from New York, and for- 
merly a Representative of Massachusetts in the 
Federal Convention, which framed the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, and one of the most 
strenuous of the Missouri restrictionists; and Har- 
rison Gray Otis, Senator from Massachusetts, who, 
as late as 1835, made Fanueil Hall ring with his 
eloquent denunciations against the mad crusade 
of Abolitionism carried on against the venerated 
Constitution of our country. And yet, is it not 
strange that a compact ratified with such extraor- 
dinary unanimity by the whole North and acqui- 
esced'in by a majority of the South, should so soon 
be repudiated by a majority of the North ? What a 
sudden'change has come over the spirit of the north- 
ern dream ! Is the present generation wiser and bet- 
ter than their immortal ancestors, the framers and 
protectors of the glorious Constitution under which 
we live ? An honorable member from Massachu- 
setts, [Mr. Win.throp,] in his speech made a few 
weeks since, on the subject of slavery in any ter- 
ritory that might be acquired, at the same time 
avowing his opposition to the acquisition of any 
more territory, and thus virtually disavowing the 
policy of our securing indemnity for the expenses 
of the war and the payment of acknowledged dues 
owing to us by the Mexican Government, said: " I 
' have no time to discuss the subject of slavery on 
' this occasion, nor should I desire to discuss it in 
' this connexion if I had more time. But I must 
' not omit a few plain words on the momentous 
1 issue which has now been raised. I speak for 
' Massachusetts — I believe I speak the sentiments 
' of all New England and of many other States out 
' of New England— when I say that, upon this 
' question, our minds are made up. So far as we 
' have power to control political events, we are re- 
' solved that there shall be no further extension of 
' the territory of this Union subject to the institu- 
' tions of slavery. This is not a matter to argue 
' about icith us. My honorable friend from Georgia 
' [Mr. Toombs] must pardon me if I do not enter 
' into any question with him whether such a policy 
' be equal or just." And so, sir, as far as the gen- 
tleman from Massachusetts is concerned, the South 
is to be robbed of her rights by the strong arm of 
political power; and the blow is not to be soften- 
ed even by a single word of conciliation or reason 
for such course. Their minds are made up .' This 
is not a question to argue about with them ! We are 
to be struck without even being heard ! Such lan- 
guage, sir, from the immediate Representative of 
the cradle of American liberty is calculated to 
awaken feelings of indignation in every southern 
bosom, and to make the Representatives of the 
people pause before they leap into the awful chasm 
yawning before them. Does it not show the grasp- 
ing and unscrupulous character of political power, 
that its morbid appetite grows with what it feeds 
on, and that concessions only whet the desire for 
further encroachments upon the weak? 

But, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Maine, 
[Mr. Hamlin,] the gentleman from New York, 
[ .Mr. Grover,] and the gentleman from Ohio, [Mr. 
Vinton,] say that the Missouri compromise line 



12 



has nothing to do with the territory hereafter to be 
acquired; that it only applied to the country then 
belonging to the United States. This is a distinc- 
tion made, as Mr. Monroe would say, by the poli- 
ticians, and not hy the people of the North. It is 
the absurd construction of a law which sacrifices 
the spirit to the letter. If the country east of the 
Rio Grande, and south of thirty-six and a half de- 
grees north latitude, should be permitted to choose 
whether slavery shall exist there or not, why should 
they not, if territory is acquired, be permitted to have 
choice west of the Rio Grande and south of that 
line ? But let us see whether this distinction is not 
one of the politicians, and whether the people have 
not repudiated it. Texas was ceded to Spain in 
1819, and the Missouri compromise was adopted 
in 1820. It did not, therefore, that is, its letter did 
not, extend to Texas — Texas that was put out of 
the Union by ihe politicians in 1819 to propitiate the 
anti-slavery sentiment, and was brought in in ac- 
cordance with the voice of the American people, 
North and South, expressed in tones of thunder in 
1844. The Missouri compromise covenant was 
again renewed by the American people, and ex- 
tended to territory that did not belong to the Uni- 
ted States at the time of the adoption of the Mis- 
souri compromise line — a thine which the politicians 
say shall not be done now. What say the annex- 
ation resolutions passed in Congress by the repre- 
sentatives fresh from the field of victory achieved 
under the banner of annexation ? Here is an ex- 
tract: 

" Such States as may I>o funned out of that portion of the 
territory of Texas lying ^outli of36 9 30' north latitude, com- 
monly known ;is tin- Missouri compromise line, shall lie 
admitti d into the Union with or without slavery, as the peo- 
ple of such State asking admission may desire. And in such 
Staf or States as may he formed out of said territory north 
of said Wis onri compromise line, Blavery or involuntary 
servitude (except for crime) shall he prohibited." 

How does this provision of the annexation reso- 
lutions, incorporated into the constitution ofTexas, 
correspond with the declaration of the gentleman 
from New York, [Mr. King,] in his "personal 
( xplanation," made to tins House on January 5th, 
1847, " that every inch of Texas was yielded to 
slavery?" He should have said, that every inch of 
Texas north o/36° 30' ufas guarantied to freedom, 
while south if that line the people xoere left free to 
choose. 

For this provision in the annexation resolutions, 
thegentleman from New York [Mr. Grover] and 1 
believe the gentleman from Maine [Mr. Hamlin] 
voted, in ol < dienceto the. will of the people of New 
York and Mai it , expressed in 1844. Here, then, 
they w< ut beyond thet< rritory belonging to the Uni- 
ted Stati s at the time ofthe adoption of jhe Missouri 

compromise. Bui in answer to this, it is said that 

slavery existed in Texas, ami that it existed in the 
territory purchased under the name of Louisiana, 
bui that n does nol exist in California. It is true 

slavery did exist in i e parts of Texas and 

ofthe Louisiana Territory, but no slavery existed 
north of 34° in rexas, and consequently none in 

thai it nse tt rritoi j ween the Red river 

ami Arkansas south of 36° 30* , west of the State 
of Arkansas, which, by the votes of those gentle- 
men, were thrown open to slavery- According to 
then- doctrines now advanced, they should have 



made a new compromise line, and fixed it at 34° 
north latitude. But this is evidently an after- 
thought, and a desire to altera "fixed fact:" fixed, 
because it belongs to the past and cannot be alter- 
ed — and that is, that the Missouri compromise line 
teas extended into Texas because it had been so allowed 
in regard to the Louisiana Territory, and because the 
compact made in 1820, originating with the .Korth, 
and sanctioned by the South, was regarded as sacred, 
and as a settlement forever of this vexed question. 
Gentlemen may attempt to twist and turn the sub- 
ject as they may, but " to this complexion it must 
come at last." These were the reasons, and the 
only reasons, for that course. It was not because 
of slavery in Texas, for this argument proves too 
much, as it gives a number of degrees of latitude 
and longitude to slavery where a slave had never 
been, and where indeed the white man had scarcely 
ever penetrated. 

To warrant this inference, the remarks of the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Grover] conclu- 
sively tend; for he, by way of justifying himself, 
charges the South with voting against any restric- 
tions in regard to slavery in Oregon at the last ses- 
sion of Congress, and thus themselves forgetting 
the Missouri compromise. This, Mr. Chairman, 
is a weak argument, and will be a flimsy shield 
against the attacks of an awakened conscience, or 
the indignation of a betrayed people, should the 
worst consequences flow from the agitation of this 
question. I have always believed that one error 
would not justify another. It must be recollected, 
that however the South may have voted on that 
question, or may vote on any question of a sec- 
tional character, it is a matter of no consequence 
whatsoever, as the northern or free States have a 
majority of forty-six votes in this Hall, and can 
control any vote of the South, while a vote of the 
North against us can effect any object within the 
supposed power of the Constitution. It must be 
recollected, too, that this censured vote of the South 
did not have for its object to impose slavery on the 
people of Oregon, but merely to prevent any re- 
strictions, and to give the people their own choice; 
while the effect of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania is to prevent the 
people of the acquired territory from having their 
choice in regard to a domestic institution sanction- 
ed by the Constitution of the United States. Be- 
sides, many believed in a want of constitutional 
power to restrict the citizens of Oregon on that 
subject, and they only now ask that those who do 
believe in the power may exercise it with modera- 
tion, fairness, ami justice, and not in such a man- 
ner as to inflict an indelible stigma on the South 
and her institutions, and to outrage the principles 
of equality and State sovereignty. When the vote 
on the subject of slavery in Oregon was taken at 
the' last session of Congress, there was no discus- 
sion whatever on the subject. Their vote may be 
compared to an obiter dictum of a court. The at- 
tention of members was not called byasingle indi- 
vidual to the subject, for the simple reason that the 
North fell secure in iis power to impose the restric- 
tion, and the South was harmless in iis weakness 

to oppose it. It is true that my colleague [Mr. 
Pillsbum] and myself voted iii favor of that restric- 
tion, and thus separated ourselves from the mass 



13 



of our southern associates upon that question; but 
it was owing to the peculiar position which we held 
as the Representatives of the State of Texas. Tex- 
as occupies a different position in regard to this 
question from any other State in the Union. Au- 
thorized by the jointresolutionsof theUnited States 
Congress to subdivide herself into five States, and 
extending, as she does, to the forty-second degree 
of north latitude, it was made one of the conditions 
of annexation, that in the division of Texas into 
States, the Missouri compromise should be re- 
spected. This condition was incorporated into the 
constitution of our State. In voting for annexa- 
tion, the constitution of Texas, and for the resolu- 
tion of the Texas Congress giving the consent of 
that Government to annexation, we had repeatedly 
recognised the Missouri compromise line; and 
when the question came up on the Oregon bill, it 
neither took us by surprise nor found us unpre- 
pared to act. In voting for the restriction, we 
were only carrying out the views of our constitu- 
ents; and where that led us, we were satisfied we 
could not err. Indeed, for the Representatives of 
Texas to have voted differently on the Oregon re- 
striction, would have been virtually saying, that 
she had come into the Union on degrading and dis- 
honorable terms, and that Texas was not an equal 
member of this Confederacy. It would have been 
granting privileges to the people of Oregon denied 
to the people of Texas who live north of 36° 30' 
of north latitude. These are the reasons that in- 
duced us to vote as we did, and not from any supe- 
rior foresight or sagacity as to the favorable bear- 
ing our vote would have on the subject now under 
discussion. But the South are now united to a 
man; they hold out the Missouri compromise as 
the olive branch of peace to the North; or rather, 
they now offer to return it to the North, who hand- 
ed it to the South in 1820: and will you not take 
your own offering? Do you ask of the South a 
return of a better peace-offering than you your- 
selves gave her in times past and gone? 

In a few days, Mr. Chairman, this House will 
be called upon to decide this momentous question, 
as far as we are concerned. Let me earnestly ask 
northern gentlemen to renew that covenant which 
once before saved this Union, and which will save 
it again. It will revive good feeling between the 
North and the South, and banish all discontent and 
dissatisfaction. Even under the Missouri com- 
promise, the North will get the most valuable por- 
tion of California, and two-thirds of the soil. The 
North have the political power, and will continue 
to have it. The cession of Virginia, the north- 
western ordinance, and the Missouri compromise, 
settled that matter forever. To all these measures 
the South gave her assent. When has the North 
ever yielded like the South on a question of sec- 
tional or political power? Will not her justice and 
magnanimity now induce her, not to yield, but to 
divide — to compromise? A magnanimous enemy 
will not take advantage of a weak adversary; how, 
then, ought friends and brothers to act towards 
one another! You have the power here. Look 
well to it how you exercise it. This is a matter 
entirely of feeling, and not of pecuniary interest with 
the South. I question very much whether, under 
any circumstances, slavery would ever be trans- 



planted into Califoi r-ia. South of 36|° the territory 
is comparatively barren, and not adapted to slave 
labor. But still, we do not feel willing to be forced 
into measures by the strong arm of power. Prin- 
ciple is dearer to us than mterest. It was not the 
amount of the duty on tea that induced our fathers 
to throw it overboard, and to resist to the last; but 
it was because of the violation of the principle that 
" taxation and representation should go together." 
And so, sir, I solemnly assure the men of the 
North that it is not for a moment the idea of pecu- 
niary loss that has united the South in resisting the 
principle of the " Wilmot proviso," but because 
it violates and outrages the principles of the Con- 
stitution, and destroys the compromise proposed 
to the South in 1820, by northern representatives, 
and accepted by a majority of the South " for the 
sake of the Union." 

Let me again urge upon our friends of the North 
to think of the past, and to look to the future, be- 
fore they cast their votes. I have heard out of 
doors some northern members deprecate the agi- 
tation of this question, and yet I fear, from the 
signs of the times, they will cast their suffrages in 
its favor. Their hearts are right, their judgments 
are correct, and yet they think, perhaps, that they 
are constrained, by the anti-slavery sentiments of 
their constituents, to vote in favor of this measure. 
But I sincerely believe they are mistaken. The 
people of the North, 1 cannot doubt, would prefer 
to let this question remain as it was settled by those 
who have gone before us, rather than to sow the 
seeds of alienation and distrust amongst the mem- 
bers of a confederacy which was founded upon, 
and can only be preserved by, mutual affection and 
regard. You may rely upon it that force can never 
preserve it. Force would be a mere rope of sand, 
while mutual interests and mutual regards will knit 
us together forever. I believe the people of the 
North will sustain their Representatives who fear- 
lessly do their duty. When the people fail to sus- 
tain an honest and independent Representative in 
the discharge of his duty under the Constitution, 
however variant his course may be from their feel- 
ings and wishes, the days of our republic will have 
been numbered. / have not the least doubt, that if 
ever this Union is destroyed, it will be brought to its 
end by a want of firmness and independence in the 
Representative to march up to his whole duly. Lack 
of moral courage in the Representative is as fata 1 ' 
to republican Governments as cowardice to Sii 
army in the hour of battle. Last session, my col- 
league and myself voted for the restriction of sla- 
very in Oregon, because we solemnly believed it 
right, for reasons I have akeady explained, al- 
though we knew, by doing so, we would probably 
raise a clamor against us, and perhaps endanger 
our reelection; whereas, by voting against the re- 
striction, we would have glided on upon the deceit- 
ful current of popular favor, uncensured and unop- 
posed. Being both of us natives of the North, it 
would furnish additional hopes to competitors of 
our overthrow. The attempt icas made, but it sig- 
nally failed. My colleague was reelected by a ma- 
jority over all competitors, and I had no opposi- 
tion whatever. I do not mention these matters by 
way of self gratulation. The farthest from it pos- 
sible. It is solely for the purpose of showing that 



14 



the people are intelligent, discriminating, and just; 
that they will not discard faithful public servants 
for taking the responsibility of doing right, how- 
ever it may, at the first blush, contravene their 
wishes and feelings, and to appeal to northern 
members to take such responsibility as we suc- 
cessfully took upon the Oregon bill at the last 
session of Congress. 

I appeal to the more liberal members of the North 
not to precipitate the fatal catastrophe that I fear lies 
before us, in case of the final adoption of this amend- 
ment by both Houses of Congress. Go with the 
friends of the Constitution now, and take time for 
"a sober second thought," and a consultation with 
your constituents, whose better judgment, I feel 
confident, will, in most cases, approve your course. 
Let it not at least be recorded in history that the 
most powerful republic that ever existed sowed the 
seeds of its dissolution by a dispute about what 
was not hers. Let us at least wait until the matter 
comes properly before us. California is not yet 
ours; it may never be ours. " Sufficient unto the day is 
the evil thereof." Let us not act on so exciting a 
subject before action becomes absolutely necessary; 
and I have not the least doubt that the patriotism 
which triumphed over so much opposition to all 
the compromises of our Constitution, will ensure 
its preservation; that the superintending Provi- 
dence which "united" our fathers will protect their 
sons from all the dangers that now surround them; 
and that this people will remain for centuries to 
come a " cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night" 
to lead the nations of the earth out of the Egyptian 
bondage which now enslaves them, and plant their 
feet upon the Canaan of equal privileges and the 
inalienable rights of man ! 



NOTE. 

[The vote was taken on Mr. Wilmot's amendment on 
Monday, February 15, 18-17. It was adopted by the follow- 
ing vote: 

Every member from the southern States voted against it, 



and every member from the norlh voted in its favor, except 
Messrs. Brodhead, Black, Erdman, Charles J. Ingersoll, and 
McClean, of Pennsylvania ; Cunningham, Morris, Parrish, 
Sawyer, and St. John, of Ohio; Douglass, Ficklin, and 
McClemand, of Illinois; Owen v.nd Wick, of Indiana; 
Strong of New York, and Chipman of Michigan.] 

YEAS — Messrs. Abbott, John Quincy Adams, Anderson, 
Arnold, Ashman, Benton, Blanchard. Brinkerhoff, Bufling- 
ton, William W. Campbell, John H. Campbell, Carroll, 
Cathcart, Collamer, Collin, Cranston, Culver, Cummins, 
Darragh, Delano, De Mott, Dillingham, Dixon, Dunlap, 
Edsalf, Ellsworth, J. H. Ewing, Faran, Foot, Foster, Fries, 
Garvin, Giddings, Goodyear, Gordon. Grinnell,Grover, Hale, 
Hamlin, Hampton, Harper, Henley, Henry, Hoge, Elias B. 
Holmes, Hough, John W. Houston, Samuel D. Hubbard, 
Hudson, Hungerford, Washington Hunt. James B. Hunt, 
Joseph R. Ingersoll, Jenkins, James H. Johnson, Kennedy, 
D. P. King, Preston King, Lawrence, Levin, Lewis, Maclay, 
McClelland, McCrate, "Joseph J. McDowell, McGaughey, 
Mclhaine, Marsh, Miller, Moseley, Moulton, Nivon, Norris, 
Perrill, Pettit, Pollock, Ramsey, Rathbun, Ripley, Ritter, 
Julius Rockwell, John A. Rockwell, Root, Runk, Russell, 
Sawtelle, Seammon, Schenck, Seaman, Severance, Truman 
Smith, Albert Smith, Thomas Smith, Caleb B. Smith, 
Starkweather, Stewart, Strohm, Sykes, Benjamin Thomp- 
son, James Thompson, Thurman, Tilden, Vance, Vinfon, 
Wentworth, Wheaton, White, Williams, VVilmof, Win- 
throp, Wood, Woodruff, VVoodwoilh, Wright, and Yost — 
115. 

NAYS — Messrs. Stephen Adams, Atkinson, Barringer, 
Bayly, Bedinger, Bell, Biggs, James Black, James A. Black, 
Bovvdon, Bowlin, Boyd, Brockenbrough, Brodhead, Milton 
Brown, William G. Brown, Burt, J. G. Chapman, AugllstW 
A. Chapman, Reuben Chapman, Chase, Chipman, Clarke, 
Cobb, Coeke, Constable, Cottrell, Crozier, Cullom, Cun- 
ningham, Daniel, Dargan, Garrett Davis, Dobbin, Dockery, 
Douglass, Drorngoole, Ellett, Erdman, Edwin H. Ewing, 
Ficklin, Gentry, Graham, Grider, Haralson, Harmanson, 
Hiiliard, Isaac E. Holmes, Hopkins, G. S. Houston, Edmund 
W. Hubard, Hunter, Charles J. Ingersoll, Joseph Johnson, 
Andrew Johnson, George W. Jones, Seaborn Jones, Kauf- 
man, T. B. King, Leake, La Sere, Ligon, Long, Lumpkin, 
McClean. McClernand, McDaniel, James McDowell, Mc- 
Henry, McKay, John P. Martin, Barkley Martin, Morris* 
Morse, Newton, Owen, Parrish, Payne, Pendleton, Perry, 
Phelps, Pillsbury, Reid, Relfe, Rhett, Roberts, Sawyer, Sed- 
don, Alexander D. Sims, Leonard H. Sims, Simpson, Stan- 
ton, Stephens, St. John, Stiong, Thihodaux, ThomaSBOJfc 
Jacob Thompson, TibbattS, Toombs, Towns, Tredway, 
Trumbo, Wick, Woodward, and Young — 106. 



W4S 



